Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan rejected President-elect Donald Trump’s attempt to have his hush money conviction dismissed based on the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity.
The big picture: The judge’s decision removes one potential off-ramp from the case as Trump’s return to office approaches, but the case’s overall future remains uncertain, as his lawyers have raised other arguments for dismissal.
- Prosecutors have acknowledged the upcoming presidency but insisted that the hush money conviction should stand despite some accommodation for his upcoming presidency.
Driving the news: Trump was convicted in May on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels in 2016, an allegation he denies.
- The allegations involved a scheme to conceal a hush money payment during the final days of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign to silence Daniels’ claims of a previous relationship, which he also denies.
State of play: The Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling, stipulating that ex-presidents can’t be prosecuted for official acts, was cited by Trump’s lawyers to argue that the hush money jury was presented with improper evidence.
- Trump’s lawyers contended that certain evidence, such as Trump’s presidential financial disclosure form, testimony from White House aides, and social media posts made while in office, had influenced the jurors improperly. However, prosecutors argued that this evidence was only a small part of their case.
